Lots of snow left in the U.S.

Click the images to enlarge. The graphic on the left is snow cover across the U.S. today. According to NOHRSC (National Operational Hydrologic
Remote Sensing Center), 39.3% of the U.S. has a snow cover, with an average depth of 5.2″. The graphic on the right is one year ago (3/27/12), when we had only 8.6% of the U.S. with a snow cover. This year, there is a solid snow cover north of U.S. 10 ( snow cover this (Weds.) morning: 8″ at Houghton Lake and Cadillac, 9″ at Traverse City, 14″ at Kalkaska and 15″ at Gaylord. Snow cover is anywhere from 7″ to 51″ across the U.P. So when we have north or northwest winds, the air will be cool, coming off the snow cover. Lake Michigan and the inland lakes are also cooler than last year. The satellite loop shows cumulus clouds developing as temperatures warm (it’s noon as I write this). Dry and pleasant thru Saturday, rain showers Saturday night could linger into Easter Sunday AM – cooler than average next week. CHECK OUT the Great Lakes Current Map.

Definitely, yes. I don’t know if this link will work for you: http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png (it’s a fee-based site. It automatically recognizes my IP and puts me into the site). The map here snows global temperature anomaly and the world is actually warmer than average for this month (NASA satellite data). The Arctic, NE Canada, much of China west to the Sahara and more than half of Australia have been warmer than average. The cold has been centered over much of N. America, Europe east to Siberia.

bDBC: As I prefer to think for myself, I clicked both links. Guess what? They showed nearly identical data; though Weatherbell’s graphics were more eye-pleasing. As for the publisher being a right-wing activist; is that what you label everyone who disagrees with you?

I didn’t say he was a regular guest. I said he showed up on Rush Limbaugh and supported that with a link to Rush Limbaugh’s page. Maue is also all over the right-wing blogosphere. He’s not anyone big enough to merit regular visits to Limbaugh’s show. He’s an ideologue with an agenda like yourself. Google him and see.

Limbaugh mentioned him once. Besides Maue’s got a PH.D. You haven’t proven that you have a GE.D. much less any credible education in meteorology or climatology. You can’t challenge the data, so you practice the politics of personal destruction.

PhD or not, he’s a political activist who also works in climate science. He’s proven his bias just like Bastardi and Exxon-Spencer. There are enough good scientists out there to use. Why does the denier camp have to use biased stooges and uneducated blogmasters to support their position.

“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade…” – James Hansen et al.

Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

SNAP! Oops, Big Daddy was exposed once again! WOW, he must be bored. He is usually a little better than this. What is the matter Big Daddy? The cooler weather got you down? Ok, now take a look a careful look at your post. Please, Big Daddy. You need to consider how this kind of stuff makes you appear.

No, Jay. That’s what I call activists. Activists are people who engage in efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis. Dr. Maue is a an activist who appears on right-wing radio shows and is an active blogger. I’m not saying he’s not a credible scientist, but I’d view anything produced by him (or Bill Steffen) with a healthy dose of skepticism.

No bait and switch intended, by the way. March isn’t available at NOAA. We’ll all see it when they release it. Glad you like the February Map though.

Dan, you have an IQ below 80. Put your football helmet back on before your mom sees. Idiot.

You have no clue about Dr. Maue and your definition of an activist fits you perfectly. Of course, Dr. Maue is contributing to science (director of modeling at WeatherBell). You are just writing political rants on a local weather blog. Of course, you have no science credentials. Here’s the current March North American Temperature Anomaly Map (this is NASA IR DATA): http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_noram_t2m_anom.png WOW the continent is at 1.482 deg. C cooler than average…that’s a big deviation from average! Look at the corridor of extreme cold from Alaska to Cuba! Havana didn’t even get above 70 on Weds.

The difference is that I’m not masquerading as a climatologist or meteorologist. You’re dishonest as is Maue because you error on the side of your ideologies. A good piece of evidence for this is the long string of threads you’ve published in the last week of so with ‘cold’ in the title. Unsuspecting readers might think a new ice age is upon us. It’s a lie.

You have NO credentials in weather or climate. You’re a special-interest shill. The evidence is CLEAR that global temperatures have been flat for the past decade and the climate models that predicted a large climb in temperatures over the past decade were wrong (“hopefully flawed” as Professor Judith Curry said).

I NEVER said that “a new ice age was upon us”. In fact, I responded to a comment that global temperatures were almost exactly average for March 2013 just as I said in March 2012 that global temperatures were almost exactly average. The contiguous U.S. is less than 2% of the Earth’s surface. However, the weather news in the U.S. and Europe has been the extreme cold and snow. It’s going to break in about a week and we’ll flip to significantly warmer.

Explain how we keep getting twelve month spans that are hotter than any year on record. Nature is not limited by the calendar, Magoo. Calendars are man-made. Last July was the hottest the northern hemisphere has on record. That doesn’t jive with your stagnation theory. This summer in Australia was their hottest on record. Last summer was our hottest. Last year the arctic melted to a new record, once again, no flat line there. Last March was the hottest deviation from normal in history! You have nothing but Fox News talking points. What a shame.

First 3 months combined below average temp wise. bDBC the northern hemisphere is starting to feel the effects of the cold PDO. The CO2 theory will be put to bed as the AMO goes cold in the coming decade.

“The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest since records began in 1850, with global land and sea surface temperatures estimated at 0.46°C above the long-term average (1961-1990) of 14.0°C. Nine of these years were among the ten warmest on record.”

My data is a year ahead of the WMO release, which is based on data that is now 3 years old. There is no disputing that global temperatures are flat…that the IPCC computer models are wrong (“deeply flawed” is how Dr. Judith Curry put it) and that even Hansen has had to admit the obvious:

“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade….” – James Hansen et al.

There are a lot of big words in there, Robert, so get yourself a dictionary and have a go.

“The research team found the variability of the NAO decade-to-decade (multi-decadal scale) has been larger, swinging more wildly, during the late twentieth century than in the early 1800s, suggesting that variability is linked to the mean temperature of the Northern Hemisphere. This confirms variability previously reported in past terrestrial reconstructions.”

Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Boy, nice gig…tooling around sunshiny Bermuda in a boat. I wonder if the grant $$ would stop if they came to a different conclusion. I would think it would be very difficult to construct climate history of the whole North Atlantic from a piece of coral in Bermuda…but they do say:

“Anthropogenic (human-related) warming does not appear to be altering whether the NAO is in a positive or negative phase at multi-decadal time scales,” said WHOI paleoclimatologist Konrad Hughen.

The truth is that global temperatures are NOT rising rapidly now…they’ve been steady for 10 years:

From the above article, this from Dr. Judith Curry: “‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement . . . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

Can you tell us the difference between temperature and internal energy? I’ve asked you this before, many times. Do you understand what these professionals are saying or are you just ignorant enough to be dangerous?

Do you understand that the enthalpy of water is eighty times that of its specific heat? It requires that much more energy to go from 100 to 101 degrees than from 99 to 100. The increase in humidity is masking heat absorption, BIG TIME. Temperature will not necessarily increase as energy absorption increases. THIS IS FACT!

And that’s the problem with your elementary presentation of the FOX NEWS version of science. The slope isn’t smooth. IT CAN’T BE and no one’s denying that. Your assumptions are all based on a smooth increase. The details are there, melting glaciers, melting poles, shorter winters, increases in droughts, WARMER LOWS, odd temperature spikes, oddly hot months and spells, strange weather events, and a radical change in biogeography.

You’re like a squirrel marveling about the traffic as it passes under his tree. You can’t possibly explain the way the combustion engine works. It’s beyond you. Give it up or go back to college. Stick to youtube sing-a-longs.

It takes a lot more energy to change the water temperature of the water in an ocean (be it from 70 to 71 or from 100 to 101 degrees) than the air over land. That, plus the smaller geographic area of the poles vs. the tropics is why under a global warming scenario, the poles would warm up faster and that the temperature increase would be greater at the poles than at the Equator.

Again, look at the water temperatures of the oceans today: http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.3.28.2013.gif Bermuda’s water is cooler than average. That’s not representative of much of the Northern Atlantic. Ocean temperatures are slow to change and can remain anomalously cool or warm for decades. You cannot imagine what a completed jigsaw puzzle would look like by looking at one piece.

This is an impediment to the climate profiteers claim that there would be many more and more severe storms with global warming. With the temperature difference between the poles and the Equator minimized, winds at the surface and aloft would be weaker. Note that surface winds and winds aloft are generally weaker in the summer, when the temperature difference between the poles and the Equator is smaller. Hurricanes are a means of transferring from the Tropics to the Poles. There could very well be fewer hurricanes under a global warming scenario…and like the summer, there would be fewer significant low pressure centers.

There is no evidence that the humidity of the Earth has increased significantly because of CO2. Aren’t you the one always citing the drought (which is no where near as bad as it was in the 1930s and is NOT caused by “global warming”). Regional humidity has increased a little because of agriculture, watering our lawns, building reservoirs, etc. That’s man-made, but not related to CO2.

Your first sentence is exactly right. You nailed it. But think about what that means. It means that water, like an energy sponge, is absorbing all that extra energy. That which is vaporized into humidity isn’t condensing because it isn’t getting cool enough to hit the dew point. Humidity IS up. So what’s happening is that water’s being redistributed differently than in the past. More than half our country’s in a drought that started back in 2010 and our climate margins have been pushed yet again. That’s the definition of climate change.

As far as ice goes, you continually make the outrageous claim that ice is on the increase in the south, despite record lows in the north, when you know that’s not true. Sea ice is NOT land ice and it’s the land ice (glaciers) that are disappearing at an alarming rate. Have a look at this NASA graphic. It clearly shows that despite an increase in sea ice – which they’ve attributed to increases in humidity – glacial ice is vanishing.

One final point about your flat line hypothesis. I know it’s fun to take quotes from scientists out of context and rearrange their meanings, but it’s dishonest. Temperature increases are not smooth, like I said above. The slope is varied for a number of reasons. Hansen and every other climate scientist on Earth knows this. What we need be concerned with isn’t so much temperature – one way to measure energy – but the effects of this increase. Again, nature doesn’t care about calendars. We’ve just completed ANOTHER of the hottest consecutive twelve month periods in history. Twelve months makes a year. Hottest summers, hottest months, 337 consecutive months above normal, third year of drought, lake levels at record lows, Arctic ice at record low, changes in biogeography…and the list goes on and on and on.

Don’t forget that the tax payers also have to pay to dig these drought stricken states out from under the debt they accumulate when their cattle die and crops dry up. Frankly, I’d rather see us make the tough choices now rather than later. It’s the responsible, moral thing to do. Again, the long term needs of our society should usurp the short term goals of the wealthy elite. Just ask the Catholic church.

Humidity is NOT up! We keep track of dew points for absolute humidity and also relative humidity. We know that dew points have risen slightly due to agriculture (the Midwest is now planted in corn and soybeans and each of those plants transpires lots of water into the air) and irrigation.

You come on here every week talking about drought and dry weather. You can’t have it both ways…actually, you can’t have it either way!

The drought is NOT caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Here’s the State Climatologist of Texas, Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon: “There is no evidence that climate change contributed to the lack of rainfall, because rainfall has risen over the past century in the state.” Link to the quote: http://texasclimatenews.org/wp/?p=5113

From Professor Matt King, Univ. of Tasmania: “GRACE has been used to determine Antarctica’s contribution to sea-level change several times before. But our estimate is a significant revision to previous studies which suggested a 2-3 times higher rate of mass loss. The reason for the difference highlights the difficulty of working with GRACE…” The challenge with GRACE is that it doesn’t measure changes in ice mass after all.”

There’s been lots of work done here. Deny it if you like, but it’s getting more humid. Climatologists have observed a rise of more than 2.5% in the last three decades. You’re wrong again.

“Gillett and his team studied existing measurements of atmospheric humidity from 1973 to 2002, recorded by a network of land-based stations as well as ships, buoys and marine platforms. Over this period the humidity in the lower atmosphere rose by an average of 0.07 grams per kilogram of air worldwide. This is in line with what would be expected in a warming world — air can absorb roughly 6-7% more moisture for every 1 °C rise in temperature.”
This was from back in ’07, Nature. I’m not aware of any studies that contradict Gillett’s findings. In fact, my guess is that this number is probably much higher now, considering the trend. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071010/full/news.2007.158.html

Fear mongering about gas prices again? …AND after your governor, Snyder, proposed raising fuel taxes by 19 cents a gallon!!! Did Granholm do that? Did Obama? No, sir. Your boy, Snyder and his rich friends not only want more corporate welfare from the middle class, but new roads too! This is heartbreaking, considering the slide into poverty our middle class has endured at the hands of the corporate GOP. We can’t afford these policies!

Despite that he still gets a meager 0.07 grams per kilogram of air. I wonder if that’s within the margin of error. I’d also like to see what stations he used to come up with the figure. In any event, if that’s all he found going from 1973 to 2002, it’s meaningless.

A 2.5% increase IS significant. You can’t claim ignorant and then in the same breath draw a conclusion. What the heck is that? Any rise is significant when you consider the incredible volume of air we’re dealing with.

So now you’re claiming that the ’70s were colder AND drier. How about the sixties, fifties? You have NO idea and no data to support your claim. Fact is, as the temp goes up, the atmosphere’s ability to draw moisture goes up. If the atmosphere isn’t getting cold enough, we never hit the dew point and we get less rain. The mechanism simple, and the result is an increase in droughts. And that’s exactly what’s what we’re seeing.

Global temperatures are NOT going up. They’ve been flat for over 10 years. Look at the data! The amount of humidity in the air has increased regionally because of land use (agriculture) and irrigation, not because of CO2.

And once again, the drought is NOT caused by CO2 or “climate change”. This is from the Texas State Climatologist:

“There is no evidence that climate change contributed to the lack of rainfall, because rainfall has risen over the past century in the state.”

Prove that Maue has “appeared on a right wing radio show” even once, bigD! I think Limbaugh mentioned him once. He didn’t “appear” that I know of. He’s got a Ph.D. You haven’t offered even a GED! There’s no way they can fudge March into a warmer than average month! Even if they include Hawaii (Honolulu is 1.3 deg. colder than avg. for March) and Alaska (which has been unseasonably cold this week and last).

Jay if you read Big Daddy’s post, he is implying that he is an activist. Yeah, a person who parades on the blog claiming that he is right. You nailed him earlier in your reply to him. He thinks everyone that doesn’t agree with him is wrong. I’m not making it up. Look at his posts. Also, take note at how he replies when he is challenged. He resorts to name calling time and time again. It really does make you wonder, if most don’t believe him here, why does he continue?

Let’s evaluate the statement, “He thinks that everyone that doesn’t agree with him is wrong.” Does it pass the logic test? By wrong, do you mean incorrect? …Or do you mean wrong in the moral sense? The reason I ask is because in science, the word wrong would imply that one might not have data/evidence to support their opinion. In that case, yes, you’re wrong about climate change, dead wrong. If you mean morally wrong, I’d have to say YEAH, you ARE acting immorally by putting your short term goals (finances) ahead of what’s best for your children (a clean world to raise their families in.) So in conclusion, you’re both scientifically AND morally wrong. I suppose that makes you a foolish sinner.

Wrong on all counts…wrong on the data/facts – wrong on the interpretation of the data/facts (the preconceived political outcome determines the interpretation) and wrong on morals grounds…forcing the poor and middle class to pay “skyrocketing” utility bills and $9 a gallon “European level” gasoline prices.

“the short term goals of the elite supersede the needs of the populous” That’s exactly why we need to stop the elite (the special interests) from forcing “skyrocketing” utility rates and $9 a gallon European level gasoline prices on the poor and middle class.

What special interest group are you referring to? I’m not aware of any special interest group that’s lobbying anyone for an increase in gas prices, unless you count Governor Snyder and his efforts to raise Michigan gas taxes by 19 cents a gallon. Support your claims or shut up.

Chu is our Energy Secretary. He doesn’t own a car, he gets chauffeured around.

I don’t support “skyrocketing” utility bills or $9 a gallon “European level” gasoline prices. The poor and middle class don’t support that either. It would destroy the economy, cost tens of thousands of jobs and do nothing to move global temperature even 1/10th of a degree.

I love that Bill continually tries to remind anyone that’s reading that I haven’t presented any scientific credentials, as if his are the one’s we should trust. Hilarious. Bill, you’re a broadcast met, nothing more. You aren’t a physical met. You aren’t a climatologist. You haven’t published a single thing and have zero college beyond that dusty old bachelors degree from forty years ago. You can’t even muster a decent seasonal forecast.

Have a look at what this ‘fake’ climate change event is doing to songbirds.

Robert, glad to hear that you voted for Obama, although I’m not his number one fan. I’d prefer a pres and congress that can actually work together to fix the mess Bush created. What happened to the moderates??? The middle class is sinking fast while extremists side with corporations, stealing our rights and tax dollars under the guise that a strong corporate US will fix everything. It’s B——-. We’re the one’s that need tax relief, not Dick DeVos, Walmart, and the Koch Brothers. They’re all richer than ever just like Bill Steffen.

” Just a few years ago climate experts prophesied that Germany would no longer experience winters with ice and snow in the future. In the 1990s there had been an entire series of milder and stormier winters. [...] However, this trend has not been observed over the last years. To the contrary: winters have again gotten considerably colder and the huge storms like those in the 1990s have more or less disappeared. [...]. Climate experts prophesied in the year 2000 that winters with snow and ice in Germany would cease to exist.”

Jung then presents the data for Germany’s last 4 winters and that of the current winter, and compares them to the 1980-2010 mean winter temperature, which was 0.8°C above the 1960-1990 mean.

We should recall that whatever applies for Germany, also applies for much of Central Europe. Moreover, Jung mentions that the results are the same if you compare the five winters to the 1970 -2000 period. Jung summarizes the results:

With the current winter, we now have 5 winters in a row that have been colder than the long-term average! Crafty scientists at first explained that climate warming was just taking a timeout. Strangely, this timeout has now been going on for 5 years without interruption. Accordingly things have gotten very quiet in the climate warming debate.”

Backstory/history: 15 – 20 years ago…leading into early 2000′s a vast majority of climate scientists espousing AGW theory posited that man-induced CO2 (CARBON-based/fossil fuel use ) would only serve to increase global temps. at ever higher rate inversely related to ppm co2 output ala “greenhouse effect”.When it became increasingly clear that unabated increases in temp. were NOT occurring as planned…names started changing to PC terminology(see:”climate change”) & goal posts were moved to accomodate changes in real vs. projected data. I propose feedback factors + other atmospheric variables (including solar) are NOT fully understood….i suspect in 50-100 years we will have a better understanding of these forcing mechanisms and won’t be subject to “best guesses” approach of current theory.

Well put, Irish, if totally wrong. First, climate changing events like droughts and hurricanes that occur as a result of a warmer atmosphere, ocean, and land are appropriately named. Second, it is getting warmer. No legitimate climatologists dispute the fact that we haven’t had a month at or below average since the ’70s, that freak events like Sandy are on the increase, that droughts are increasing, that winters are shorter, and that glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate. FOX News has done it’s job well on you. I’d suggest you put a little less whiskey in that coffee and pick up a periodical now and then.

Record cold in Florida this AM: 32 in Gainesville! Wow! And record cold in Alaska. And the entire country is 1 degree C colder than average for March! Better go cut some more firewood, Big D – another Arctic front coming for Monday!

Sandy was a minimal hurricane that was only a major event because 1) It occurred at high tide 2) People build to within a couple feet of high tide and don’t want a sea wall to block the view 3) They did heed the warnings and leave

NOAA meteorologist Martin Hoerling attributes of Sandy to “little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm”. The storm was classified non-tropical an hour before landfall.

“Peru’s Quelccaya ice cap is the largest in the tropics. If it continues to melt at its current rate—contracting more than 600 feet (182.8 meters) a year in some places—it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands who rely on its water for drinking and electricity high, dry, and in the dark.”
National Geographic

Prove my ACT and SAT scores? I might still have a copy in the basement. Send me your address and when and if I find one or the other I’ll send you a photocopy (I’ll have to charge you for the photocopy, stamp and envelope…I’m not the government).

Actually, you are a student of mine. I’ve been schooling you for a couple years now. Sorry I got your test date wrong. I would never have guessed you were a child of the ’60s. Hippies everywhere are shuddering.

Again, I feel like that lady on the old Wendy’s commercial, but instead of “Where’s the beef,” it’s Where’s the science? It’s funny that you try to debate a scientific topic with nothing but hearsay and rhetoric. You’re ridiculous.

41 in G.R. at noon. Yesterday I had 42 for a high for G.R., so we are one degree shy of that. I expect the temperature to head toward 45 – it’ll level off. As the air at the surface warms, we’ll develop more cloud cover (and maybe a scattered spring/snow shower) and the wind will increase. It won’t be quite that warm at the Lake Michigan shoreline by the cool water. The temperature at 12:30 PM on the beach at Muskegon is 37.

Haven’t had any significant snow here in weeks. Winter’s been over, but yet it hasn’t quite yet been spring (outside of the two warm days we had two weeks ago). Stuck in the middle, but it looks like spring is coming! 50′s this weekend and maybe 60′s next weekend.

What is odd is that despite the cold, there has been little snow…and even less rain. Our water levels in the channels have dropped quite a bit the last few weeks. While we hit 50 this weekend, its back to 30′s/low 40′s for next week. Terrible weather.

Yes im going to complain about sickness again. 20+ people got sick at my wifes work from some dipshit who probably came in sick and was cooking. Piece of advice people, stay home if ur ill. Hoping this doesnnt hit my home again. I hear this new stomach bug packs a punch. Yet another reason we need summer here.

Our dirt roads are finally drying out with the sun and wind. I think this is about the first day that our roads haven’t been covered in snow, ice, or been muddy since early January. The only exception is the tenth of a mile in front of my house where we still have snow banks on the sides of the road. Our driveway still had ice on it when I left this afternoon, but it’s extremely squishy and muddy.

Even with temps expected to be below average over the next 6-14 days…. it still looks like very little, if any late season snows expected. Time for us snow lovers to start looking forward to next season I think. This one seems to be officially in the books for west/southwest Michigan.

I remember when people would come up to me and tell me the Russians could control the weather. I’d ask them if the Russians controlled the weather, how come Russia has the worst weather of pretty much any country in the world. Wouldn’t they bounce up those 60-below temperatures in Siberia?

Nature (and weather) is BIG…sometimes man thinks he’s BIG…but man is really not nearly as BIG as he thinks he is.

I get all kinds…in the 70s it was the leftist alarmists who were pushing overpopulation and massive famines that would starve tens of millions. Of course it never happened. Now it’s global warming alarmists who are pushing “skyrocketing” utility rates and $9 a gallon gasoline. Those “solutions” would kill the economy and wouldn’t budge global temperatures. Swine Flu! Y2K! Bird Flu! Global Warming! The Emperor’s New Clothes!

WOW, Brad! Do you have some issues here? Holy Smokes, you should get an appointment so that you can deal with some of this! Those folks? Hmm, last I checked the Constitution was written for all of us! Brad you should take a look at that document before you go painting people with that broad brush stroke of your keyboard!

Yes, Brad! I referenced the Constitution because you mention, those folks as if to say you have some special rights.
You do not. You have the same as every other American. By the way, those rights were given to us because of the tens of thousands of men and women who fought so that we could have them!
You come across as if you have been granted other rights.
Please read the Constitution so that you can educate yourself about what rights you have been given.

“Peru’s Quelccaya ice cap is the largest in the tropics. If it continues to melt at its current rate—contracting more than 600 feet (182.8 meters) a year in some places—it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands who rely on its water for drinking and electricity high, dry, and in the dark.”
National Geographic

First “Climate Nexus” is a far-left advocacy group. Second they say “could be”, which means they really don’t know. Third, this is aimed at New Jersey and the area affected by very minimal (in terms of wind speed) Hurricane Sandy. Third, precipitation was below average in March here in the Great Lakes…no indication that the pollen season would be “the worst ever” here…in fact, with above average precipitation forecast by CPC, we’d get the atmosphere “washed” a little more often than a typical string. Just more hype from climate profiteers.

Ice Age Now is a fossil-fuel supported site produced to confuse people. Exxon spends millions every year propping up sites like that one and people like Exxon-Spencer who push propaganda and rhetoric. If you want actual data, trust real scientists and reputable institutions, not shills. The great conspiracy theory that all of the world’s scientists have gotten together to sell a lie so that liberals in every country can raise gas taxes is not supported by anyone credible anywhere. How does it feel to be a Fox News stooge that pushes the short term goals of the elite over the needs of everyone else? Even your church disagrees with you. http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/

Not ALL the world’s scientists have gotten together….you exaggerate greatly. It all depends upon whether they are getting global warming funds for research or whether their salary is paid for by those who are benefitting from the global warming scam. In fact there are scientists who have jumped off the global warming bandwagon. None of them deny that there is probably some climate change going on….after all climate change has been going on for millions of years….you can’t stop it.

That’s exactly what I’m saying, Judy. All of the scientists HAVE NOT gotten together. It’s ridiculous to think so. As far as scientists jumping off the proverbial bandwagon, who do you mean? I’m sure you have someone really important in mind. Your theory that they only support climate change to get grant money would mean that climate scientists are all dishonest money-grubbers. Are you sure you aren’t talking about meteorologists?

“I also have to agree with Jim West. My firm ‘belief’ in AGW had already been undermined by some extremely bad papers about mosquitoes, arthropod borne disease, and the effect a warmer Earth on wildlife (I am a biologist). But, I assumed these were just opportunists jumping on the gravy train and that the problem was with the journal review process, not AGW.

But the Climategate emails made it all too clear that there was no science at all in ALL these famous papers in Nature and other ‘prestige’ journals. Rather, all the sound and fury appeared to be generated by an unscrupulous cabal eager for grant money, fame, and lots of CO2 generating trips to warm and pleasant spots where they could regurgitate their story to a corrupted press and conniving politicians.

As far as I can tell now, many of the assumptions of AGW appear to be false, nothing that one reads on climate change from Nature to Drudge is reliable.”

Who’s Dave? The fact that he called those stolen emails ‘Climate Gate’ tells me he’s just another stooge. Look down the list of crap links you put up, not a single scientific source in the lot. LOL Even the World Meteorological Association agrees with the world’s scientists that climate change is occurring as a result of global warming and is being brought about anthropomorphically. There’s no controversy, only anecdotes and nit picking.

Dave is a biologist. You on the other hand have no scientific background. The Climategate emails weren’t “stolen”. They were leaked by someone in the group. Listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk He/she saw the manipulation of data (“use Mike’s TRICK to HIDE THE DECLINE”) and with the utmost honesty and courage decided that with so much money at stake and so much misery planned for the poor and middle class (the promise of “skyrocketing” utility rates and “European level” gasoline prices) that he/she had to bring the deception to light. I truly hope that eventually FOIA gets the acclaim well deserved for blowing the whistle on the deception.

You’ve got old links. Even Hansen now admits that global temperatures have leveled off:

“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade…” – James Hansen et al.

Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

A biologist? Why do we care about the opinion of a life scientist in a discussion of climate? You’re really grasping at straws now. My World Met Organization link isn’t old. NOAA isn’t old. NASA isn’t old. Berkeley isn’t old. The Japanese Met isn’t old.

Hansen’s opinion seems incredibly valuable to you. He may be the most quoted man on this blog because of you. Let’s have a look see at what his opinion really is, rather than a taken-out-of-context blurb. Here he is speaking about climate change. It’s entitled, WHY I MUST SPEAK OUT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. I think I’ll trust the words from his mouth rather than your keyboard.

Your representation of Hansen is dishonest. What a shame you can’t debate the evidence. Seems like with those great high school test scores you were bragging about, you’d be able to, at least, muster a descent debate offensive instead of having to resort to slimy misrepresentations.

You’ve painted yourself into a corner. No way out. Why do we care about the opinion of a life scientist? WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION??!! You’re not a climatologist, you’re not a meteorologist, you haven’t even given us proof that you’ve got a GE.D. What credentials do you have?

Ron Block • “As an operational meteorologist with the NWS for more than 25 years, and co-located with a major meteorology university, i have had ample opportunity to work with the gamut of meteorologists and climatologists in operations, teaching and research. the global warming debate has become an oft spoken about topic “around the water cooler” and in academic exchanges. my humble opinion (in part as someone who has done long-term climate research), is that there is a wide range of opinions amongst operational meteorologists, less so with climatologists and professors. the majority of my co-workers are skeptical about attributing recent warming simply to man-made events. they are more apt to look at geologic cycles of warm and cold period and fit the current trends within this long term scenario allowing that humans may have influence on the fringes of the climatic shifts. conversely, those who teach and/or use climate or numerical modeling as the basis of their research seem more convinced that most or all of recent changes are directly man induced. one has to look beyond their explanations and filter the source. operational mets have no agenda, their careers are not dependent on seeking tenure or research grants, which are largely dependent on fitting in in a very closed culture and in singing the song of your sponsor. i.e. your department chairmen or more likely the grant bestower, usually a left leaning read:environmental entity. so in sum, yes ops mets with less direct barriers in expressing their opinion re”career advancement are more likely to look at the bigger picture and thus be more skeptical.”

To be honest, I’m not sure why you care so much about what I write, but you almost always answer. Why don’t you tell me why you care. LOL The fact that you continually put up non-experts for their ‘expert’ testimony is a problem. If you were in court and needed a medical expert to testify, you wouldn’t call an ornithologist, doctor or not. Sorry, Bud.

I don’t know why you spend so much time on the old threads of a local weather blog. I care because I’m on the side of the poor and middle class. You climate alarmist/profiteers want to force “skyrocketing” utility rates and “European level” gasoline prices on the poor and middle class. It would create great hardship for the poor, middle class, minorities, those on fixed incomes, the disabled, the elderly and children. No more without budging global temperature a tenth of a degree.

Your link, to NRDC (not to be confused with NCDC), is a far-left advocacy group. They are dependent solely on grant money and contributions from the far-left, including the “climate profiteers” would would stand to make millions if utility and energy rates were forced on the poor and middle class.

You’re a liar and deceiver. People can see that. Unable to advance your cause with fact and logic, you resort to lies and personal attacks. Your comment above is yet another example. You claim that “Dave the biologist” is “out-of-work”. You have no evidence of that and yet you demean the poor man, because you can’t respond to his very legitimate skepticism. It’s easy for the general public to see what you right and not trust you or your “cause”.

The main point to consider is global temperatures are steady. NASA data clearly shows that:

Wow. I’ve never heard anyone talk about the National Resource Defense Council. Wow! Seems like a conservative would want to conserve our resources. The Corporate GOP, in truth, doesn’t believe in conservation of any kind. Conservation means a reduction in short term profits. That’s why you support fracking. That’s why you support pipelines over alternative energy. That’s why you support giving billions in welfare to oil companies, foreign AND domestic. That’s why you’d relax every law that protects US from THEM. That’s why you deny any responsibility for deforestation, ocean acidification, climate change, erosion, or ozone reduction. That’s why you deny even your church. http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/

Calling names and accusing me of lying, when I support every claim with data looks desperate and hollow, but that’s your choice. Go back and look at the thread. What claims have I failed to support? You asked why I come here. I’ve answered that question many times. I’m here for you, to provide an alternative explanation. I do it well and I’m sorry if that makes you look angry and foolish, but I’d stop in a heartbeat if only you would.

Again, the bottom line is that CO2 emissions are falling in the U.S. This is reprinted in the Washington Post:

“U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide dropped to a 20-year low in July. “In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal. Many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.” Kevin Begos in The Associated Press.”